I feel that perhaps the reason Philip got it early is because he's a male who's in the fairly unique position (particularly in those days) of being the junior partner in his marriage. George VI had to know that that's a position that most men would find difficult, and maybe gave him the Garter early to try and 'even the playing field' somewhat, particularly while Elizabeth was still a Princess.

I certainly don't feel that Camilla's likely to get the Garter until Charles is King, but I'm sure she won't have to wait long (if at all) to receive it from Charles III.

Camilla will inevitably be granted the Order of the Garter but there has to be a vacancy first of all and I also think that its a matter of balancing no. of royals with others (politicians, eminent people etc). It isn't just for royalty.

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

Currently, there are only twenty two Knights and Ladies Companion, meaning two positions are vacant.
In addition, members of the British royal family are not included on the list of Companions: they are Royal Knights and Ladies.
Similarly, members of foreign royal families, such as the King of Norway and the Emperor of Japan, are Stranger Knights and Ladies.

Camilla could be made Royal Lady of the Order of the Garter at any time; in fact, I fully expect her to become one within the next few years. Honours are bestowed gradually, so it makes sense she was first granted the Family Order, then RVO - Garter should be next on the list.

Camilla could be made Royal Lady of the Order of the Garter at any time; in fact, I fully expect her to become one within the next few years. Honours are bestowed gradually, so it makes sense she was first granted the Family Order, then RVO - Garter should be next on the list.

I ecpect she will not become a member of the Garter during the lifetime of the present Queen but Charles will bestow it her as one of the first following the precedents of Edward VII. and George V. and George VI.

I think if Harry serves a further tour in Afghanistan, the Queen might take the opportunity to 'reward' him by making him a Garter Knight. Otherwise, I see him having to wait for his father to become King.

She made her own younger sons wait until their mid-40s. Why would she therefore reward her younger grandson at a younger age than she did for her own sons? It would be an insult to Andrew and Edward for Harry to get that award for doing nothing much at all while they had to work for years for the Queen to get that reward from their own mother.

I don't think serving (potentially) twice in Afghanistan could be considered 'nothing much at all'. Particularly while the Afghanistan campaign is ongoing and has cost us over 400 men and women so far, Harry's willingness to put his life on the line for the nation when he could just as easily be sitting in barracks at home, is very significant. The British people have a great deal of respect and admiration for Harry's service. I can imagine the Queen wanting to honour that while she's still around to do so.

She could give exactly the same honour she gave Andrew for his service in The Falklands campaign. He too was admired for his war service. He didn't receive any more acknowledgement than given to the rest of those who served.

What you are suggesting is that she should honour her grandson for serving his country with a greater honour than she gave her own son for the same reason - serving his country in a war.

Sorry but that is just saying that The Queen should honour her grandson more than her own son - but with no reason for doing so.

I'm also of the opinion that the Queen will stick to tradition and have Charles give Camilla the garter when he's King.

It's highly unlikely the Queen will give Harry the Garter while he is still in his 20s or 30s, regardless of whether he serves in Afghanistan or not. Considering the amount of brave men and women who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be an insult to them to have Harry singled out for the Garter. Why not them?

The Queen made her own sons wait until their 40s, her cousins until they were in their 50s and they had many years of service to her. The Queen hasn't been overly generous with the personal honours she gives out, she seems to feel they need to be earned and gives them out sparingly.

William was a special case getting the Garter at 26, but that was so that he could have been the 1000th knight. Had he got the Garter at a later date it wouldn't have had that special number.

Artemisia. I am continually amazed at your knowledge of all these things royal - or maybe just British Royal? And you are new to TRF, to boot. I assume this been a life-long hobby of yours.

Although genealogy has always been a hobby of mine, I have never been particularly interested in royals until I watched Crown Princess Victoria and Prince Daniel's wedding. I'm mainly interested in Swedish, Norwegian and British royals, as well as non-reigning ones (mainly, from genealogical point of view). Since there was a lot to learn, I tried to go through older threads to catch up; now, in addition to genealogy, I'm positively addicted to jewellery threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlotte1

I'm also of the opinion that the Queen will stick to tradition and have Charles give Camilla the garter when he's King.

It's highly unlikely the Queen will give Harry the Garter while he is still in his 20s or 30s, regardless of whether he serves in Afghanistan or not. Considering the amount of brave men and women who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be an insult to them to have Harry singled out for the Garter. Why not them?

I believe the Queen will eventually create Camilla Royal Lady of the Order of the Garter purely because that would be the clearest and final indication of "acceptance". And for various reasons, it is quite important for Camilla's future role alongside her husband. As for Prince Harry, it seems unlikely he'll be made Royal Knight of the Order of Garter until Prince Charles is King.

I am beginning to see the fascination. Never realized how beautiful such objects can be.

Interesting factoid I came across: Diamonds were only 'discovered' in something like 1710 or something. Totally new idea to me.

Also, that wearing a crown or hair/head ornamentation is falrly 'recent' for royal ladies as since the fall of Rome (up until maybe the late Renaissance, I think the poster said) women were obliged to wear a hair covering.